How consciousness shows God exists (with Josh Rasmussen)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 вер 2021
- In this episode Trent interviews philosopher Josh Rasmussen on his research that shows how the phenomena of consciousness provides good evidence for the existence of God.
Edward Feser’s Philosophy of Mind is an excellent guide book for this topic!
James Madden is great too.
Yeah its good, but for me it was a little too biased. I mean I expected to learn about key ideas, but besides that I also got a defence of hylomorphic dualism, which is not bad, but on the other hand I can imagine some physicalist who just want to learn about important ideas and not read the attack on his position.
The chapter on consciousness of the Experience of God by David Bentley Hart is an excellent work on this topic.
My consciousness travelled right back to that time when McDonald's did fry their fries in beef tallow! 😲😋 Yup, fries 🍟 never were the same after that... a 'pure divine' moment. 🤣
My friends and I were literally talking about this last night. I came up with that the origin of thoughts is the soul and not something physical. Otherwise, we do not have free will because everything is caused by something materially.
This "Otherwise, we do not have free will because everything is caused by something materially." is actually still unknown. Neuroscientist are even arguing about it to this day. Experiments have and are being done.
Most materialist reductionists (which includes the vast majority of scientists) actually believe that free will is merely an illusion. If one does not believe in transcendence of some sort, this really is the inevitable ultimate conclusion, as you correctly adduced.
I think this is one of the most convincing arguments for an average lay person
The average lay peerson could geet this eeasily.
@@tonywallens217 lol
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
Such a nice guest!!
Great video, Trent!
Seems to me that Moses and John both explain consciousness very well and, by extension, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.
"In the beginning God... the Spirit of God moved... God said..."
"Hear oh Israel. [God is]..Lord...Lord...Lord... [man is] heart... soul... strength"
and basically the entirety of John's Gospel...
I've also heard a philosopher use the phrase "an eternal dialogue between three persons", which I've found to be a quite concise summation. Even Freud seems to have borrowed from Christian theology when developing his tripartite model of the human psyche. Unfortunately, his complex historical and personal relationship with religion may have predisposed him to frame this model in secular terms, thereby losing much of its validity and explanatory power.
Loved this so much
Ooh! Must read… Fr. Robert Spitzer’s book: THE SOUL’S UPWARD YEARNING: Clues to our Transcendent Nature
from Experience and Reason 🤗
Awesome!
Hahahaha Trent... I gotcha!!!
You mentioned "Nigerian Prince", its hilarious and sad at the same time that Some citizens here have made this country to be labelled with fraud and scam....
I'm sorry for that...
I'm also a Nigerian and we are good people.
If possible, I would like to have an episode with you on my catholic Podcast.. I would be super excited Trent!
The interesting problem about consciousness to me is mental causation--how a mind can have causal influence over the brain, especially by virtue of its semantic content, i.e. what it is about. Assuming it can, that would mean there are invisible causes in the brain since third person properties are invisible to third person observers. If the mind has causal influence over the brain by virtue of its semantic content, then there are effects in the brain whose causes can't be observed in a third person way. I wish somebody would tackle the question of whether that has any bearing on the plausibility of hidden variable interpretations of quantum mechanics.
The notion that 'minds' have 'causal influence' over anything (let alone the brain) is a hopelessly confused product of the Cartesian tradition. There are no entities or objects called 'minds'; there are human beings, and human beings have minds - that is, an array of distinctive intellectual capacities. But there is no such thing as an array of intellectual capacities having causal influence over the brain. It just makes no sense.
@@legron121 My comment doesn't even assume that minds are distinct substances from the brain. All I'm talking about is first person subjective properties, whether they are properties of the brain or not. In either case, they would have to have causal influence over the brain by virtue of the semantic content before they can have anything to do with our behavior by virtue of their semantic content.
Consider any state the brain is in, and let's just assume that mental states supervene on these brain states or that they are emergent properties of brain states, or even that they are one and the same thing as the brain states. The question still arises how the next brain state can be the effect of those mental states, not merely by virtue of their third person properties, but by virtue of their first person properties. That is what my comment was about.
It's very easy to see how a mental state could have causal influence over the brain by virtue of its third person properties, i.e. by virtue of the physical properties of the brain that give rise to those mental states. We know enough about physics to know how that's possible. But the question is how a belief or desire can affect our behavior by virtue of what that belief or desire is about, i.e. its semantic content.
@@introvertedchristian5219
Thanks for that. But I think there are a couple of serious problems. The main one is that it's not obvious that it even makes sense to speak of 'first person subjective properties' and distinguish them from 'third person objective properties'. How is a belief 'first person'? While it makes sense to talk about 'first person pronouns' or 'speaking in the first person (i.e., using the first person pronoun), there is no sense assigned to the words 'first-person beliefs' or 'first-person desires'. (You don't believe or desire something _in the first-person.)_ You might say that it means that no one else can observe your beliefs. But you can't observe your beliefs either! There is no such thing as 'observing a belief'. (The inability to observe a belief is like the inability to hear a colour or see a sound - it is just a lack of sense.) Or do you mean that no one else can have your beliefs? That can't be right, since you presumably believe that the earth is round. But I have the same belief - viz. the belief that the earth is round. Of course, _your believing it_ cannot be the same as _my believing it._ But so too, 'your smiling' cannot be the same as 'my smiling'. It doesn't make it 'first person' or 'subjective' in any sense. So, it seems to me that 'first person subjective properties' is just a meaningless form of words.
Still waiting for those descriptions in the link.
Quick question: is it possible to prove consciousness independently? Can one actually demonstrate that someone (or some thing) is conscious?
In medicine, we use proxies for consciousness - reactivity, behavior etc. We also sometimes use fuzzy criteria that rely on the subject's experience and ability to describe the experience (such as to attest continuity in time, preservation of mental state etc.)
But there is no direct "measure" of consciousness that I know of.
So far medical ly from what ive seen in the or is eeg, but even that is a proxy measurement of brain activity. A great thought experiment is the, i think its called, anesthesiologists zombie. Whereby one flips the argument of the zombie analogy whereby a person does everything a person does by behavior but is not consciously, but in this case we have a patie t that is u able to Express anything but is conscious. How do we prove thst.
So far all we can see is change or shift in expression. Cuasing me to hypothesize that there are three general states, externalized, i ternalized and normative. Externalized has to do with the conscious dissacociating from the body due to it failing and thus ceasing to filter reality. Ergo death experiences. Then normative consciousness includes every state of Walking consciousness. While internalized ewuates to sleep and the deepestbeing the experience of so called nothing.
That i came to when i drilled friends and family thst had lost consciousness what they experienced. And they all concluded, even the atheists, that there was an experience of nothing ergo the acute awareness of the blank. Rather than actual amnestia whereby someone is not even aware of having this blank. This would be caused by the body simply losing all capacity to decode information and shitting down its sense entirely. Including the sense of time as there is no reference.
What do you think?
PS, in my opionion Dreams may be a key to our understanding.
@@boguslav9502 not exactly. EEG is reliable for brain state (wakefulness, drowsiness, stupor, coma etc.) but it does not really quantify consciousness or self awareness. There's a difference. Wakefulness EEG background is indeed necessary for full consciousness but it is not sufficient. But in persistent vegetative state, the EEG can be indistinguishable from awak. Moreover, various altered states of consciousness can be associated with an EEG that is not classically awake.
This was way over my head.
Nah
if you can't define consciousness how can we use it as evidence of anything?
Because it is undeniably evident to the person experiencing it. Similar to, "I think; therefore I am." This argument might be something like, "I think; therefore not naturalism."
You can define consciousness. It's the condition healthy humans have during waking hours. Through their consciousness, humans syllogize.
It can be defined as the mean the human mind has for syllogizing, which is different from the means computer have to compute (you can use computatiom to syllogize in some situations).
Wait a sec..this thing bodering me for while..is it only may impresion or Trent look like Ray Romano..even sometimes that nazal voice?
@tkwtg eeeevrebody loves Trent
To me he looks like Ben savage from boy meets world but grown up.
No. Ray Romano's voice is 1,000 x's more nasal, and annoying. Trent sounds fine.
I don't think I can ever prove that you have the same experience of first-person perspective of consciousness that I'm having now, and vice versa. I can for example think that my friend Josh is actually just a bio-robot driven by A.I. that looks and operates exactly like an organic human being, complete with living cells and everything; but I don't because the evidence (or more like I have faith that) is that Josh was born, conceived as a little baby, grew up as all the other human kids, just as myself and my parents, and his parents, and my other friends and their parents. And so, since I have my own consciousness through which I am aware of myself and can assert some voluntary actions upon this body in which I am in control, it is only reasonable to believe that all the other people out there have the same thing even though the experiences can be different depending on the functioning of their owned organs.
To know that each person has his / her own unique first-person consciousness and control is one thing, but to know why I "have" to become myself, or was born as this person, and not as a person who lived in a village 3000 years ago, or as person who will live in 3000 A.D. is another thing. It becomes easy to believe in the idea of rebirth or reincarnation, that our consciousness will just go on forever as different persons or animals; but this belief has a problem with population growth, since we know that human populations grew and still are growing at this point, who are the persons who are "first-timers" in their awareness and birth as there are more bodies to fill than previous conscious perspectives? People who believe in rebirth also, if I'm not mistaken, believe that moral qualities of your lives determine your next life, which mean there is a certain kind of objective judge that justifies behaviors and choices in life, who (or what) is this judge? As Christians, we don't believe in mechanical rebirths (but in the resurrection, by the power of God) because we have divine revelations from God and His teachings, we value each individual as a Person, not as an individual in an endless chain of mixed personalities from the past, we believe that God created each individual Person with an eternal soul afterward.
If consciousness is just a one-timer experience, this raises the question to why it can exist in the first place and to "where it goes next" question. By simple economic and material perspective alone, not taking any chances, therefore people will try to have the best things in their lives before they die, precisely because they don't know how they were created and how will they fare when they die; and the godless assumes that since there is nothing anymore after this life, it is just good to do whatever it takes to make "the best" out of it. So there is a value about life, about consciousness, even the most hardcore atheists will want to live as long and as healthily as they can if it is possible, even it is just to make the more money or do more things for example; because their inner hearts recognize the objective value of the created lives in their conscious hearts and minds.
Cool
They question you concerning the Spirit. Say, ‘The Spirit is of the command of my Lord, and you have not been given of the knowledge except a few [of you].
I have a question, How to argue that consciousness is not the typical argument of " God of the Gaps " ???
You’d have to argue that it’s logically impossible to get consciousness (an immaterial part of reality) solely from unconscious matter. Not just improbable, but actually impossible.
@@gerardlegrange237 So..you know what makes a brain conscious? I know MANY scientist are working to figure out how the brain generates this, how is that you've figured it out? Have you published your paper yet? You could revolutionize this field!
Easy. There is a difference between arguing that we 'don't know how the brain could' produce consciousness, and discussing 'reasons it cannot be (solely) responsible' for consciousness.
The difference is: in one case you're using ignorance as a scapegoat to smuggle in 'God,' whereas in the other, you are tentatively asking whether the brain is capable, fundamentally, of producing consciousness, given what we know.
There is nothing unscientific about the latter, since ALL OF SCIENCE (without exception) is based on philosophy.
Anyone calling this a 'god of the gaps' is claiming that we can't deduce what is possible given what we know...
That is, saying 'anything is possible.'
This is the POLAR OPPOSITE of 'science.'
@@6502Assembler I’m referring to the form of the argument you’d have to make, not the argument in full detail.
I know Josh is a philosopher but I think the best arguments for God pertaining to consciousness is in quantum physics. Too bad that couldn't be a topic of discussion at some point as the quantum realm seems to be where our consciousness extends and where it interacts between our reality and God.
Quantum physics?
@@emkfenboi Yep! Absolutely. Consciousness is theorized to be involved in collapse of wave functions.
@@MrAnomic Where can i read about this?
@@MrAnomic That's funny, in your first comment, you stated it like it were a fact of some kind.
@@6502Assembler really? The words 'seems to be' means 'fact' to you? Interesting.
I've been thinking about this I'm very brain damaged but I'm the same person
Did anyone ever make the argument for God from the existence of information?
@William Sousa Thanks because if you really think about it, information like for example a architectial blue print can never come into existence through change and DNA is in my view the same thing just far more complex.
Is Josh a Christian who goes to Mass? Anybody know?
Trent is the only catholic at this conference. SO ,NO .
Josh teaches at a Protestant school.
So, I don't find this argument (or this presentation of the argument from consciousness) persuasive. Josh created programs that simulate evolution and consciousness didn't arise in any of them? I understand that this is just one little part of motivating what is being imagined here as a solution to a big problem, but gimme a break. Until you know exactly what God allegedly does to bring about consciousness, I don't see how consciousness itself is better explained by appealing to God's alleged activity in bringing it about, regardless of how special consciousness is. To put the same point another way: Trying to discover the origin of consciousness is not really aided by thinking that it had to come from God or it wouldn't have come about unless God brings it about. Thanks for the video, though. I gave it a thumbs up because I do love Josh anyway and appreciate his mind and work.
I dont think Dr. Josh was trying to argue for divine intervention for the emergence of conciousness. Rather that consciousness seems to be fundamental and not reducible. (Atleast if I'm understanding him right) such a conclusion fits quite well with a theistic picture of reality since theists posit a necessary mind that grounds all reality. In a sense theism would seem to share a starting point with what Josh seems to be motioning towards. One could also posit that if conciousness is fundamental and not reducible to other material parts or substances that would fit far more comfortable on theism than on naturalism which has historically over the last century or so gravitated towards more reductive or physicalist understandings of reality. Also it would make concepts such as Deities, souls, demons Angel's etc. Viable on such a model
@@daniellowry660 Thank you for the reply. So, I'm not sure I am following you here. Is there something about consciousness that is worth considering that bears on the question of whether there is a God, i.e. could show that God exists? This question can be understood to be asking about either the origin of consciousness or the nature of consciousness. Now, if there isn't something about the origin or nature of consciousness that bears on the existence of God, then why is this video titled "How consciousness shows God exists"? If there is something about the origin or nature of consciousness that bears on the existence of God, then what is it exactly? To say that consciousness is fundamental, i.e. not reducible to physical properties, is to say something about what consciousness is. To go from this to it "fits nicely" with theism isn't philosophically interesting, particularly when theism already has some other kind of fundamental thing, i.e. God, necessary or not, and I guess other fundamental things too like souls, demons, angels, etc. So, I guess I was taking Josh to be saying something interesting, i.e. that consciousness wouldn't emerge unless it emerged from God. Hence, that's why he brought up his simulation of evolution experiments.
@@markpaul1383 I mean God would be a fundamental necessary Concious agent upon which our conciousness would derive similarly to the rest of reality. It's sort of the inverse of materialism which posits mind as an emergent property of matter. Basically if something like Idealism is true then the fundamental nature of reality would be mind or mind like and that already sounds a whole lot like theism.
@@markpaul1383 also I wouldn't say I'm positing multiple fundamental entities ie God and conciousness. God is the grounding for all contingent concious agents. Being a concious agent himself he would seem to avoid the issue of the hard problem of conciousness. If you're familiar with either of Inspiringphilosophy or Christian Idealisms channels on youtube they have good explanations of the theistic implications of Idealism
@@daniellowry660 Okay, great. So what does God do exactly to "ground" all other contingent conscious agents? How do we know God does exactly this (whatever the answer to the previous question is) and not some other thing? Why does God do this (whatever the answer to the first question is) and not some other to pull it off? These kinds of questions linger, and while they aren't objections to theism, they do convey a kind of concern, namely that the kind of explanatory power that the theist thinks she has isn't all that powerful if she cannot give some principled answer to them.
What is the difference between UNIVERSAL CONSCIOUSNESS - Divine Consciousness and human consciousness? We truly need to understand these differences to enable us to live spiritually pro-active lives within our world. And that is what Jesus and many other spiritual teachers have come to help us solve.
Consciousness is now a word used widely - even lightly - but is not fully understood by many dear seekers of Truth.
We have drawn our being from Universal Consciousness split into Divine Consciousness at the time of the Big Bang.
This is the perfect Consciousness of Loving Intelligence and Intelligent Love. IT is IMPULSES. These IMPULSES are the very basic energy - the MAINSPRING of all existence. This Consciousness is indeed within us - surrounds us - transcends us and can lift us in ever higher strata of spiritual ecstasy and ephemeral perception. This Consciousness is what many call "God" - "Allah" - "Jehovah" - "Infinite Intelligence" - "Divine Mind" or "Divine Consciousness" - or the "Tao" - etc.
It is within us and transcends us.
But what humankind must fully realize is: that it is of such a high frequency of vibration - so spiritually refined in meaning - that it cannot be drawn into our own human consciousness to make Itself known to us - until we begin to overcome the Ego (the guardian of individuality) and ascend in spiritual perception of Truth.
The Ego (the guardian if individuality) is the barrier to Superconsciousness.
Only the most systematic and persistent daily attempt to cleanse our consciousness from the Ego (the guardian if individuality) - will make it possible for Divine Consciousness to SEEP into our human consciousness bringing us new insight and perceptions. Illumined by new insight and perceptions - our thoughts - our words and our actions will begin to change.
When we SEE things differently - we will begin to THINK and ACT differently.
Our human consciousness is imperfect. It is fabricated out of selfish egotistical drives. Let not the Ego (the guardian of individuality) resist this valid statement. We are in no way to be blamed for this - because the Ego (the guardian of individuality) is divinely created in order to separate Divine Consciousness into individual people. We need the Ego (the guardian of individuality). It defends us and it draws to us what we need to survive - BUT the Ego (the guardian of individuality) can overwhelmingly force an us into behavior which is sick - psychologically speaking. We know that Ego (the guardian of individuality) is the impulse behind all the crime in the world.
It is the Ego (the guardian of individuality) that impels people into such deep-seated narcissism and self-interest that anyone trying to arouse in such a mind any empathy or sympathy - is sadly blocked. No matter what topic may be raised - inevitably - such egotistical - narcissistic people draw the topic back to themselves - how it affects them - how it concerns them exclusively - positively or negatively. Absorbed self-interest is like a thick dense fabric of consciousness energies sealing off the minds of people of every strata of society in every part of the world.
The degree of narcissism varies. Jesus and many other spiritual teachers tried to make us aware of this - because such narcissistic people cannot live in harmony with other people as they are incapable of hearing the messages from others. This - as much as our crime - causes our misery on earth.
Learn from this allegory. Behold - a child playing in a sticky mud pit - making pies - covering himself with mud - enjoying every minute. His mother comes - exhorting her child to come and bathe and get ready to go to a party. The child fiercely resists - crying. Eventually - the mother has her way and the child - freshly groomed with his hair shining and clad in smart party clothes enters the hall where the party is being held. The child stares in astonishment. The glorious lights! The brilliant shrubs and flowers! The tables loaded with delicacies - cakes and jellies. And all the presents and games and fun the other children are having. The heart of this child is filled with radiant joy. Laughter begins to well-up and fill his entire being. This is so much better than his mud pit! All the washing and the scrubbing was worth it. How glad the child is that he listened.
no you cant mind cant be copied!! virtual and just let you know folks this guys after use videos and sound mic just to communicate to us!! sorry just cant be done!!
It can be done ... 2029 is the singularity year
I think we have a real issue in modern philosophy and in science, in which materialistic nominalism is assumed a priori. In this way, a lot of philosophy ends up arguing absurdity for the sake of upholding the dogma. It has taken on the view Catholic theologians largely held in the late 19th century, the view that their role is to defend the dogma without regard to realism and forming new dogmas the people must hold to. For instance, the drive for an eternal universe is guided as much, if not more, by a desire to not have a beginning than it is by observation and mathematical principle. (One has to explain, for instance, how a unique solution arises from a self-referential function extending to negative infinity.) The rejection of the readily observed state of consciousness strikes me as yet another example of a defense of the a priori principle in face of a rebutting experience.
How does it square with the opinion that other animals are utterly material? Isn't their perception irreducible to matter?
@@HoneybunMegapack but they do have perception and allegedly it's not reducible to physics
@@HoneybunMegapack This is exactly the postion of Aristotle and Aquinas. But they advocate hylemorphism, the view that everything spatial is made out of matter and form, so humans and animals are just special cases of this form+matter composition in which their form is called 'soul' in virtue of its perceptual powers. They would probably disagree with the statement that anything is wholly material but idk really. For Aristotle pure matter is just potency to be something, it has to be actualized by form to even exist. And he calls secondary matter what we nowadays call it - already a composition of some form (electron/gold/water) and Aristotelian first matter. Surely a naive atomistic view of matter is wrong, but does this hylemorphism thing is closer to reality, some say it makes sense of the mind-body problem and squares with quantum mechanics but who knows what squares with that. Many-worlds square with it too.
Consciousness is the beginning of everlasting life which emerges at conception.
It can't disappear at the end of life. That would mean that as your consciousness disappears into nothing it leaves a vacuum, a nothing, in that space/arena where your consciousness once was.
If "nature abhors a vacuum", posited as a scientific fact, then consciousness must live on after our physical death.
Where does the energy in my computer go when I turn it off? My computer certainly stops processing, where did the processing go off to?
🤦🏻♂️
The God of consciousness is not the God of revelation but a philosopher's God. Ultimately, Trent is an apologist for a theology of glory, but not a theology of the cross. Because the God of Revelation, unveiled in Christ, only exists in proclamation or announcement in word and sacrament. Outside of this context, God does not exist.
These people wont understand, most even get violent when you talk some sense into their dumb ontology
That's the easy part the hard part is determining if God is conscious
God is super conscious. His consciousness is not relegated to past present future
God only exists inside of human consciousness as far as anyone can tell.
@@junacebedo888 grow up
@@6502Assembler Not if miracles and God's incarnation on earth (Jesus) truly existed.
@@elf-lordsfriarofthemeadowl2039 Proving that without Jesus being willing to demonstrate it now will be pretty much impossible. No witnesses to interview, no truly reliable contemporary historians were there to document. No good reason to believe Jesus was doing anything miraculous.
... I thought that St Thomas Aquinas already debated and stumped Descartes... Are you going back to Descartes..? 😛
Heretics.
This is a classic example of the poverty of philosophy. Philosophers hide behind jargon and import false assumptions, and are misled into thinking that words and concepts are of equal status to physical facts in determing reality.
Trent definitivly smugul commercial for McDonald s wrapt in deef philosofical topic..how much money paid you Trent?
ra ra
The brain stops working and consciousness stops. A simple observation from an atheist.
Bring religion into the equation and we are overwhelmed by books and debates because religion wants to justify the existance of a supernatural soul. 🙄
Mind and brain are one and the same?
@@junacebedo888
Yep. The same thing......unless your a theist maybe? Then you get to claim a soul and other magical stuff.
"The brain stops working and consciousness stops." Same with the heart. Same with your veins. Same with your brain stem. Same with your spinal cord.
What you're really saying is 'when you can't really survive anymore, you aren't conscious.'
Um, obviously? Connection of consciousness to anything does not mean that that thing is the sole or sufficient cause of consciousness.
Theres evidence for brain activity after death for a short period. The after death experiences those who were clinically dead but revived. Top cardiologists have studied this. There's a Priest who's a PhD who's studied this. Cant remember his name but he presents evidence for consciousness for shorts periods after death for those who have been brought back to life
@@albertoascari2542
I marshaled at motorcycle race meetings for years and have had riders crash and be quite dead. But sometimes after a few minutes they gasp a bit. Or you get a leg movement.
Its not always like you see on the T.V.
But believing there is some sort of consciousness outside of the brain is just daft in my opinion.
...it doesn't...next desperate willfully ignorant topic...
Classic God of the gaps fallacy.
Perfect example of it really. It's so obviously a fallacious argument, one would have to be completely blinded by religion to miss it.
It's actually a pretty simple Bayesian argument. It can be structured as follows. P (Consciousness | Theism) > P (Consciousness | ~Theism).
Or more clearly, the probability of consciousness existing is more likely given theism than nontheism.
In order to be a God of the Gaps argument, it would have to be structured as:
P1. Consciousness Exists
P2. We don't know what causes consciousness.
C. God must cause consciousness.
The latter is obviously a fallacious argument while the former is just a basic probability argument. It can be shown simply by the fact that Theism as a hypothesis entails the existence of at least one conscious agent.
@@theistthinker7345 " Theism as a hypothesis entails the existence of at least one conscious agent."
@@6502Assembler Yes. Basic theism, as a hypothesis, states that God exists, and that God is:
1. Conscious
2. Immaterial
3. Infinite (Tri-Omni Attributes)
Given this hypothesis, if Theism is true, then it is entailed that God exists. And if it is true that God exists, then it is entailed that there will be a conscious agent because God is a conscious agent. In other words, there is no possible world in which God exists and which a conscious agent does not exist, since being a conscious agent is just a property of God.
@@theistthinker7345 God of the gaps is when you have a general understanding of how a system works, but then there is a "gap" in your knowledge of the system that you cannot reconcile with your pre-existing knowledge of how the system works. So you resolve this problem by simply proposing spiritual or divine intervention. The problem is, that's not good science. The people in the video are saying that they understand that there is generally a causal connection between brain activity and mental activity. However, they feel that because they don't understand how objective material states can translate into subjective experience, they therefore conclude that consciousness is some kind of divine phenomenon. They refuse to simply admit their ignorance at the present time and then wait for further data to present itself later that could possibly make more sense of the consciousness problem. So as I said, God of the gaps.
LOL Did you really think a simple argument from ignorance was going to be convincing?
I really wanted to hear the PhD speak, but Trent developed verbal diorriah!! Next time, shut up, Trent!!!
don't be rude dude
They had an informal discussion, why are you rude?
To hear the PhD speak. Type Joshua Rasmussen, click videos, play, sound.
Charity...
Please learn how to spell before saying anything.